Survey the world’s campaigns to alleviate poverty and improve people’s lives, and a common thread emerges: People in wealthy countries feel it’s important that people in poor countries stay at home. Development organizations in Africa, in particular, receive billions of dollars each year to oversee (often well-meaning and occasionally successful) programs designed to make “life at home” better for Africans—whether through running farms in Rwanda, educating teens in Tanzania, or supporting whole Millennium Villages (at a cost of $12,000 per household).

A half-million more African migrants would create more than a billion dollars in additional exports for Africa per year.

One could go further and argue that if Africans in one particular state or region migrate or want to migrate, then development in that area hasn’t worked. In his 2007 paper, “Keeping Them in Their Place: the ambivalent relationship between development and migration in Africa,” the International Migration Institute’s Oliver Bakewell wrote that “from its earliest roots, development practice has commonly seen a reduction in migration as either an (implicit or explicit) aim of intervention or an indicator of a programme’s success.” Migration, then, is considered inversely proportional to success in African development.

But a fascinating new paper from the World Bank turns this logic on its head. “Does Migration Foster Exports?­” has a title with an unnecessary question mark. According to the authors, migration does indeed foster exports in Africa, and in numbers large enough that they should catch the attention of development and policy leaders worldwide. Their findings “suggest that one additional migrant creates about 2,100 dollars a year in additional exports for his country of origin.”

African Migrants in the World in 2010

Many African migrants stay in Africa. (World Bank)

Using that estimation, a half-million more African migrants dispersing throughout the world—a number equivalent to less than 1/100th of a percent of the world’s population—would create more than a billion dollars in additional exports for Africa, per year. The $2,100 is in addition to the dramatically increased salaries African migrants can expect from moving to countries with stronger economies. It’s also in addition to the remittances they send home. And it takes into account that half of all African migrants don’t even leave the continent. With the number of African migrants in the world having doubled since 1980 to more than 30 million, and given Africa’s expected population boom in the coming decades, the impact Africans have from a distance on their home-country economies is only set to grow.

Remittances and Other Resource Flows to Africa, 1999-2010

African immigrants continue to contribute economically to the countries from which they emigrate. Note: This graph does not track the impact of migration on exports. (World Bank)

“Migrant populations play a significant role in opening markets for African exports by enforcing rules and contracts, and by making products better known in foreign markets,” Raju Jan Singh, the paper’s lead author, tells me. African countries tend to have weak legal institutions and therefore loose enforcement of the rule of law, and African migrants living abroad play an especially important role in addressing these challenges. The migrants create an “enforcement channel,” the authors write—settling disputes between traders and imposing informal sanctions through the diaspora community—and that channel grows “in proportion to the weakness of institutions in exporting countries.”

If, for instance, a shop owner in the United Kingdom wants to purchase and resell Ghanaian fabrics, a member of the Ghanaian diaspora living in London can help ensure—if not by law then by the threat of shame in her native community—that the dealer doesn’t get ripped off by sellers from an unfamiliar culture a continent away. In the case of a country with weaker institutions, such as Liberia or Cameroon, migrants abroad play an even bigger role in these kinds of transactions.

African migrants also facilitate information-sharing. They move to places where locals may be wary of buying products made in their native countries, and make these products seem less risky to import. Ethiopian food, for example, has become popular in certain U.S. cities, and you’ll even find some Americans, especially gluten-free folks, making their own injera, a spongy flatbread made from a grain called teff that is native to the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea. That simply wouldn’t have happened without a thriving Ethiopian diaspora living abroad and sharing their delicious foods with their new neighbors.

“The implication is that migration is positive for the home country,” says Singh, “not only through remittances, but also by opening the export markets, which sort of dampens the ‘brain drain’ story.”

Indeed, the loss of human capital is often cited as an argument against the concept of migration as a form of development. When educated people move away from poor countries in large numbers, the thinking goes, those countries struggle without their best and brightest. But the Center for Global Development’s Michael Clemens has shown that rather than creating a void, African health professionals leaving home may actually encourage more people to attempt to duplicate their success by becoming health professionals themselves. And Columbia’s Jagdish Bhagwati put it well when he noted that the “‘brain’ is not a static concept. Trapped in Kinshasa, under appalling conditions, the brain will drain away in less time than it takes to get to New York.”

Major Destination Countries for Emigrants From Africa, 2010

Eleven of the top 20 destination countries for African migrants are other African countries. (World Bank)

Back in 2007, Bakewell argued that international development has been shaped by one of the nastier elements of colonialism, which depended heavily on controlling the movement of locals—from the theft of humans for slavery to forced labor on African plantations to apartheid-era Bantustans—for the benefit of European migrants to Africa.

In a study for the Overseas Development Institute, Priya Deshingkar and Sven Grimm made a similar argument. “Implicit in many agricultural or rural development policies in Africa is the aim of controlling population movements,” they wrote. “Policymakers have tended to perceive migration largely as a problem, posing a threat to social and economic stability, and have therefore tried to control it, rather than viewing it as an important livelihood option for the poor.”

Ethiopian food simply wouldn't be popular without a thriving Ethiopian diaspora living abroad.

When development aims to improve “home,” it is presumed that a better life at home is always the goal for the beneficiaries. We’re so clear about wanting to develop countries that we call the places we’re helping “developing countries.” The goal is to develop a place where people happen to live, rather than to develop people, wherever they live.

The trouble with development work that encourages migrants to stay home, or return home, wrote Bakewell, “is that it assumes that all the actors involved have a common view of the ‘good’ ends to which the process leads them. It operates on the assumption that the normal and desirable state for human beings is to be sedentary.” If improving only “home” is the goal, then, “It is impossible simply to bring migration into development (such as ‘inserting migration into the Millennium Development Goals’) without raising fundamental questions about the nature of development and how it is put into practice. These include asking about the conception of the good life in mainstream development goals; the appropriateness of models of development based on the nation state; and, the inherent paternalism of mainstream development practice.” For the beneficiaries of development initiatives, Bakewell added, these “activities may be trying to maintain a way of life which they would love the chance to abandon.”

These days, however, a number of economists are making the case for looser borders as a means of reducing poverty—arguing that development is about people, not places. And the World Bank’s new study appears to support this assertion. The report’s authors found that the farther migrants move, and the more ethnically different their new home from their old home (both are homes, by the way), the more exports they help create for their country of origin.

“The paper would thus suggest that through migration, trade barriers hampering African trade could be further reduced,” write the authors. “[N]amely that it would help enforce contract, reduce information costs, and lower cultural barriers.” Let more Africans migrate, in other words, and Africa will benefit from substantially increased exports. Some might call that developing countries.

“Very few embassies have a good idea of who the diaspora is or where they are. Very few have continuous contact with them,” says Singh. “So [our paper is] really a call for African governments to be proactive, and to tap this untapped source of opportunity.” Destination countries for African immigrants are unlikely to heed a call for increased migration any time soon, not when authorities are returning or detaining desperate migrants landing by boat on European shores, calling African migrants “infiltrators,” and instituting new quotas for immigrants. It may thus fall to African governments to allow and even encourage more of their citizens to leave home and spread word of their countries’ products to the larger world.

In 2003, the University of Birmingham’s Douglas Rimmer wrote, “An exacting test of how serious we are about reducing inequality in the world is whether we are prepared to allow migration into the advanced economies of people from Africa and other poor areas. By this test, few of the advocates of international aid are really serious.” Perhaps we’ll perform better on that test now that we know just how valuable Africans are to Africa—whether from their old homes or their new ones.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.